talkmagic.co.uk

A_n_t wrote: Oh and on the note of homeopathic evidence, Google it, there are plenty of "proven" studies.

Link to just one Ant, just one. That is:

double blind
peer-reviewed
published in a respected journal

Just one...

Looking forward to the read.

damianjennings wrote:

A_n_t wrote: Oh and on the note of homeopathic evidence, Google it, there are plenty of "proven" studies.

Link to just one Ant, just one. That is:

double blind
peer-reviewed
published in a respected journal

Just one...

Looking forward to the read.

You have done a great job there of neglecting to read, or rather bother to comprehend my original post at all. If you want to have a look at some of the apparently proven claims (which you don't) instead of have someone hand everything to you on a plate (which you do) because you are too lazy to do the leg work yourself (which you are) and base you opinions on those of other people without looking at the evidence (which you have) then here is a starting point, the footnotes include the list of references to studies (10 seconds searching on Google).

http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/rese ... c_reviews/

There are 34 referenced studies there for you to refer to.

Feel free to read through them and reach the same conclusion as you currently hold (that is why "proven" was in quote marks). The difference is at least then your opinion will be based on something other than what someone else told you to think.

A_n_t wrote:http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/systematic_reviews/

There are 34 referenced studies there for you to refer to.

Okay, I'll refer to them, but you won't like it.

The page says that only 10 studies (29%) were favourable to homoeopathy. However, unless I've got this wrong, looking at the conditions involved, aren't they all either self-limiting or episodic conditions? The homoeopathic remedies could have been helping via the placebo effect or playing no part in treatment at all.

What's interesting is the number of conditions where you'd expect homoeopathy to have an effect (headaches, anxiety, etc.) but where there was either no evidence or it was inconclusive.

From the conclusions:

"Homeopathic Arnica has been the subject of three systematic reviews. Two found insufficient evidence overall to support the efficy (sic) of this medicine, while a meta-analysis of three trials of Arnica in knee surgery concluded that it is effective compared to placebo."

This is a good use of "weasle words". Is it actually saying that Arnica is equitable to a placebo? Why don't YOU do some leg work now and email the authors to ask. It's your argument, after all. You defend it.

"Some Cochrane reviews have recommended that, as well as randomized trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. For example, McCarney, et al. (2004) commented that such data “will help to establish to what extent people respond to a ‘package of care’ rather than the homeopathic intervention alone”

This suggests that the context in which the therapy is delivered is significant. When you administer morphine, it doesn't matter whether it's on the battlefield or recovery room. It just works.

Tomo wrote:

A_n_t wrote:http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/systematic_reviews/

There are 34 referenced studies there for you to refer to.

Okay, I'll refer to them, but you won't like it.

Why would I not like it?

I have already stated quite clearly that after examining the evidence presented by the homeopathic community (the stuff which I have spent the time to look at), I have reached the independent conclusion that it has no grounding in reality and if any elements of it do work then the way in which it works is in no way linked the the suggested solution of a quadrillion dilutions.

I have nothing to prove or disprove so far as my opinion is with the consensus on this - it is not real. What I do object to however are people that base their opinions on nothing other than the opinions of others.

The hypocrisy of an unsubstantiated belief in something without evidence to back it up seems obvious to me (even if it agrees with my own opinion).

The request was for the studies that "prove" homeopathy. There are no studies that prove this to a standard that I would find acceptable to change my opinion, if at all, however this does not mean that my proof is the same as someone elses and it is up to each individual to reach their own conclusion based on the evidence. The "evidence" presented by the homeopathy corner (some of which can be found in the link I provided) is a part of this proof. I, like you, do not see it as being proof at all, quite the contrary but if this is the proof that community are using, then it is the proof you need to gauge your opinion on, whether it is convincing or not.

A_n_t wrote:I have already stated quite clearly that after examining the evidence presented by the homeopathic community (the stuff which I have spent the time to look at), I have reached the independent conclusion that it has no grounding in reality and if any elements of it do work then the way in which it works is in no way linked the the suggested solution of a quadrillion dilutions.

Ah. As you were. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Tomo wrote:

A_n_t wrote:I have already stated quite clearly that after examining the evidence presented by the homeopathic community (the stuff which I have spent the time to look at), I have reached the independent conclusion that it has no grounding in reality and if any elements of it do work then the way in which it works is in no way linked the the suggested solution of a quadrillion dilutions.

Ah. As you were. Nothing to see here. Move along.

*Whistles while idly kicking a can along the steet*

Tomo wrote:

"Some Cochrane reviews have recommended that, as well as randomized trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. For example, McCarney, et al. (2004) commented that such data “will help to establish to what extent people respond to a ‘package of care’ rather than the homeopathic intervention alone”

This suggests that the context in which the therapy is delivered is significant. When you administer morphine, it doesn't matter whether it's on the battlefield or recovery room. It just works.

Isn't this about the experience by which you arrive at a particular treatment though? Buying a homeopathic remedy for lurgy from Boots because you think you have the lurgy will probably give a weaker placebo response than if you've sat with a white-coated practitioner in a certificate laiden room answering a hundred questions about your stools and then given the remedy, even if it's the same one (onowait, they are all the same one ). Theatre gives an incredibly potent boost to placebo reactions, which is why it's been so difficult to get to grips with acupuncture. A theatrical treatment requires an equally theatrical placebo.

I think it's Trick or Treatment that discusses trials set up to address the "individuation" of homeopathic remedies. Because homeopathy believes there isn't sucha thing as a "one size fits all" homeopathic remedy, they complain that classic randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials are inappropriate1. The counter to this, in research terms, is to get a group of 1,000 people suffering from the same ailment, have them go through the homeopathic diagnostic procedure, and then be randomized when it comes to collecting their prescription.

1 Another reason is that clinical trials run on Newtonian physics, whereas CAM works on that new Quantum physics they've got now.

Sorry, to jump back in to reply to a post from 5 days ago, but my internet went down whilst I was typing it and has only just come back, so for proper context;

Craig Browning wrote:You're still not HEARING what I've said and, true to most in your shoes, seeking to make me the one that's in the wrong.

I don't buy into "all of it".. .never said that. I've only said that ALTERNATIVE Health methods can, have and do work in certain instances and that the professionals that work in that field that aren't out to screw their patrons or sell snake oil will insist on working with an MD. Not because they "know what they do won't work" but for the sake of proper procedure.

I don't have to list proof, it exists, anyone can find it IF THEY WANTED TO...which is my point, you guys don't want to see data that might cause you to question the gospels you've embraced. That's where the conflict exists

Then you are not hearing what I have been saying.

I am not ruling out all forms of alternative medicine, simply those such as homeopathy which have no possibility of being effective; if there is some conceivable way in which it could work then I have no issue with it, nor could I comment since I have read few studies.

What I am doing is stamping my foot over the ridiculous notion that science is out to quash beliefs and support the money makers. The researchers you may have concerned yourself with might have such motives, but real science, the stuff that makes a difference (and not the "I know it doesn't work so I'm going to prove it" stuff that you seem to think is all there is), does everything it can to ensure that the tests are fair and valid including double blind testing and peer review. I should note that peer review isn't just sending it off to a mate who agrees with you, it is a rigorous process; one paper that I had a small part in writing was sent back 3 times for changes to improve clarity (not in the bit I wrote of course!) for publishing in a relatively minor journal with a small circulation.

When it comes down to it, medical researchers would love to prove that some of these alternative medicines work, since it would give them whole new areas to play with. They will do this only by using the proper methods and ensuring that, as far as possible, no other variables have an influence on the outcome. As for money, when placing contracts with universities (when personal contact has been made with the research team), it is not unusual for us to have received results before our respective contracts departments have even agreed on what we are doing. The researchers see something interesting and jump on it in the assumption that the money will get sorted out eventually, and if it doesn't then it's someone else's problem.

A_n_t wrote:
SNIP
some waffle from a teenager who is trying to sound clever

http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/rese ... c_reviews/

There are 34 referenced studies there for you to refer to.

Sadly, I can't see one there that meets the conditions I asked for.

So, let's try again.

Can you send me one link for just ONE bit of research that is:

a) double blind
b) peer reviewed
c) published in a respected journal

PS Don't waste your time, you cannot provide a link to such research, because none exists. Bless you for trying though, it was sweet.

damianjennings wrote:PS Don't waste your time, you cannot provide a link to such research, because none exists. Bless you for trying though, it was sweet.

You are missing the point; he is agreeing with us! The studies are the kind of thing that homeopaths might consider to be proof and (here I might be wrong since I haven't bothered wasting my time reading them) presumably, are not double blind, peer reviewed papers from a respected journal because that IS the point!

nickj wrote:

damianjennings wrote:PS Don't waste your time, you cannot provide a link to such research, because none exists. Bless you for trying though, it was sweet.

You are missing the point; he is agreeing with us! The studies are the kind of thing that homeopaths might consider to be proof and (here I might be wrong since I haven't bothered wasting my time reading them) presumably, are not double blind, peer reviewed papers from a respected journal because that IS the point!

Oh. I thought he was patronising me and posting bad links to research from homeopathy sites.

Just goes to show you can read into things when it's typed.

Sorry.

No need to apologise; I just hate to see people who agree arguing!

nickj wrote:No need to apologise; I just hate to see people who agree arguing!

Happens all the time, you should see my missus and her parents!!

=)

On the subject of Arnica. I just had a horrible argument with someone i actually respect. She gave me some arnica for a bruise. Fair enough, it's a plant, it might work, why not rub it on and see. Unfortunately she gave me arnica tablets from boots. "Homeopathic potency" in a sucrose pill. I politely demurred saying I'd rather take ibuprofen (call me old fashioned, but it works). Long story short I mentioned double-blind, randomised, peer reviews (I ignored that stuff about micro dilutions of silver) and she said, wait for it : "well of course those tests don't work. homeopathy isn't like that". What you mean it can't be tested? "exactly, it works on the spirit, on the soul, on the being. it doesn't work on the material plane" I hastily avoided the question of brain-mind duality, made my excuses and left. And she's not daft, she has post doctoral qualifications (admittedly in history ...).